3 ms·

1. Is keeping Russia in a forever war. Draining resources and preventing them from projecting any hard power anywhere else in the world. Seems like a good deal

1. Is keeping Russia in a forever war. Draining resources and preventing them from projecting any hard power anywhere else in the world. Seems like a good deal for US to me.

GMoromisato 2y ago
I get that. As I said, maybe eventually Putin gets deposed. But (a) it is basically prolonging the losses for Ukraine, and (b) assumes that Russian won't escalate (maybe with nukes). Russia knows that we're not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. At some point, they will cross a threshold and we will have to back down.
- padjo 2y ago
  Russia is not going to use nukes.
  - GMoromisato 2y ago
    What makes you so sure? They have already said that certain events (e.g., Russia itself being "threatened") would make them use nukes. We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine and Russia/Putin knows this. If he decides to use nukes what are we going to do? What can we do?
    - gafferongames 2y ago
      Ukraine literally invaded Russia with Western weapons in support. The nukes did not fly. The nukes will not fly.
      - Yujf 2y ago
        Right. And also you can never take that threat seriously when Russia is using it while on the offensive, because following that logic you should let them do whatever they want because nukes.
    - aucisson_masque 2y ago
      If anyone use any nuke, the world as we know it is done, Ukraine might not be able to retaliate but others have already promised to. France did for instance. No one want it, Putin and especially China. Current atomic weapon are no more the little Nagasaki Firecrackers.
    - FrozenSynapse 2y ago
      >We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine and Russia/Putin knows this. If he decides to use nukes what are we going to do? What can we do? They are not going to risk their security for Ukraine. They wouldn't risk starting a nuclear war over Ukraine, it's stupid, even for their standards
  - sgregnt 2y ago
    Russia is more likely to use nukes against US if Russia wins in Ukraine.
- jpgvm 2y ago
  1. Is not about Ukraine. It's about the US and Europe. They benefit massively while Ukraine suffers the losses on their behalf. Think about it. They support Ukraine by sending them surplus or aged weapon systems while modernising and funnelling money to their military industrial complex (with public support!). In return Ukraine uses those weapons systems to keep Russia tied up in a war, exposing Russia's most modern weapon systems and providing a huge amount of information on how to fight a drone war. This is a great investment independent of what happens in or to Ukraine, basically they turn weapons they needed to replace or get rid of anyway into intel, new weapons, political brownie points at home and a weakened adversary. China doesn't mind it that much either, though they enjoy it less because they had invested fairly heavily into Ukrainian infrastructure that is being destroyed. Keeping Russia isolated makes it easy for them to extra cheap oil & gas, push for pipelines that flow to China instead of towards Europe and also offload a bunch of their industrial surplus now that their requirements are winding down and the rest of the world is trying to tariff them for dumping. So basically the problem is 1. is good for almost everyone except Ukraine and Russia. Trump for whatever reason can't understand that and just wants to throw a tantrum as is befitting for someone of his intelligence.
  - krick 2y ago
    I understand how USA gains from that. Please explain to me how Europe does.
    - NeutralCrane 2y ago
      How does Europe gain from preventing Russia from invading and annexing a European country that wishes to be part of a European alliance?
  - navane 2y ago
    None of the solutions are good for Ukraine. So the least we can do is not decide for them but support them in their decision.
  - freehorse 2y ago
    > It's about the US and Europe. They benefit massively EU (germany) gets increasingly deindustrialised, to a big part due to energy costs associated with the war, and the related sanctions and sabotages. This war would not have even started if the previous US administration(s) had not pushed to that direction, europe was up to that point signing energy deals with Russia, they had no incentive for a full blown war. EU was following, and now they run around like headless chicken with no purpose, goal and prospects while Trump is basically trying to cash out of the situation. But I agree with you that, whatever this has to do with, the least is about Ukraine itself and democracy. Sadly we are never gonna move on from this false narrative until it is too late.
- NeutralCrane 2y ago
  Russia can’t escalate any more than they already have without directly attacking the US or with nukes, and in both cases, it’s suicide. They are struggling to take on Ukraine, let alone the US, and literally no country of influence would back them if they attacked or escalated to nukes.
  - dualboot 2y ago
    Russia took the US with social media and an election. Not bullets.
    - redeux 2y ago
      I agree with you, but that's not what's being discussed here. If it were to come to kinetic warfare, Russian wouldn't stand a chance against the US as evidenced in Ukraine.
      - bcrl 2y ago
        Would the current US president actually order the US military to defend the country against a Russian invasion? That's not exactly clear anymore.
ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago
Stopping / freezing means russia continues to stock up at the current rate and and takes odessa and kaliningrad once trump term is up. The only option is for to create even more cost efficient+robust+sophisticated+massed drones and slug it out
- dralley 2y ago
  Kaliningrad is already Russian, I'm not sure what city / country you meant but probably not Kaliningrad.
maratc 2y ago
It sadly does nothing to solve the real geopolitical issue that the US have in this century, namely the rise of China.
- altpaddle 2y ago
  And who is China's strongest ally in the world?
  - maratc 2y ago
    No-one is. If that's a hint at Russians, then no: they were on a brink of war throughout the 70s, tensions in the 80s, basically ignored one another since the 90s, however since the start of Ukraine war and both being on the receiving end of sanctions they started to drift closer, which could be described as "the West pushing Russia into Chinese embrace."

1. Is keeping Russia in a forever war. Draining resources and preventing them from projecting any hard power anywhere else in the world. Seems like a good deal for US to me.

GMoromisato 2y ago

I get that. As I said, maybe eventually Putin gets deposed. But (a) it is basically prolonging the losses for Ukraine, and (b) assumes that Russian won't escalate (maybe with nukes). Russia knows that we're not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine. At some point, they will cross a threshold and we will have to back down.

padjo 2y ago
Russia is not going to use nukes.
- GMoromisato 2y ago
  What makes you so sure? They have already said that certain events (e.g., Russia itself being "threatened") would make them use nukes. We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine and Russia/Putin knows this. If he decides to use nukes what are we going to do? What can we do?
  - gafferongames 2y ago
    Ukraine literally invaded Russia with Western weapons in support. The nukes did not fly. The nukes will not fly.
    - Yujf 2y ago
      Right. And also you can never take that threat seriously when Russia is using it while on the offensive, because following that logic you should let them do whatever they want because nukes.
  - aucisson_masque 2y ago
    If anyone use any nuke, the world as we know it is done, Ukraine might not be able to retaliate but others have already promised to. France did for instance. No one want it, Putin and especially China. Current atomic weapon are no more the little Nagasaki Firecrackers.
  - FrozenSynapse 2y ago
    >We are not going to blow up the world to save Ukraine and Russia/Putin knows this. If he decides to use nukes what are we going to do? What can we do? They are not going to risk their security for Ukraine. They wouldn't risk starting a nuclear war over Ukraine, it's stupid, even for their standards
- sgregnt 2y ago
  Russia is more likely to use nukes against US if Russia wins in Ukraine.
jpgvm 2y ago
1. Is not about Ukraine. It's about the US and Europe. They benefit massively while Ukraine suffers the losses on their behalf. Think about it. They support Ukraine by sending them surplus or aged weapon systems while modernising and funnelling money to their military industrial complex (with public support!). In return Ukraine uses those weapons systems to keep Russia tied up in a war, exposing Russia's most modern weapon systems and providing a huge amount of information on how to fight a drone war. This is a great investment independent of what happens in or to Ukraine, basically they turn weapons they needed to replace or get rid of anyway into intel, new weapons, political brownie points at home and a weakened adversary. China doesn't mind it that much either, though they enjoy it less because they had invested fairly heavily into Ukrainian infrastructure that is being destroyed. Keeping Russia isolated makes it easy for them to extra cheap oil & gas, push for pipelines that flow to China instead of towards Europe and also offload a bunch of their industrial surplus now that their requirements are winding down and the rest of the world is trying to tariff them for dumping. So basically the problem is 1. is good for almost everyone except Ukraine and Russia. Trump for whatever reason can't understand that and just wants to throw a tantrum as is befitting for someone of his intelligence.
- krick 2y ago
  I understand how USA gains from that. Please explain to me how Europe does.
  - NeutralCrane 2y ago
    How does Europe gain from preventing Russia from invading and annexing a European country that wishes to be part of a European alliance?
- navane 2y ago
  None of the solutions are good for Ukraine. So the least we can do is not decide for them but support them in their decision.
- freehorse 2y ago
  > It's about the US and Europe. They benefit massively EU (germany) gets increasingly deindustrialised, to a big part due to energy costs associated with the war, and the related sanctions and sabotages. This war would not have even started if the previous US administration(s) had not pushed to that direction, europe was up to that point signing energy deals with Russia, they had no incentive for a full blown war. EU was following, and now they run around like headless chicken with no purpose, goal and prospects while Trump is basically trying to cash out of the situation. But I agree with you that, whatever this has to do with, the least is about Ukraine itself and democracy. Sadly we are never gonna move on from this false narrative until it is too late.
NeutralCrane 2y ago
Russia can’t escalate any more than they already have without directly attacking the US or with nukes, and in both cases, it’s suicide. They are struggling to take on Ukraine, let alone the US, and literally no country of influence would back them if they attacked or escalated to nukes.
- dualboot 2y ago
  Russia took the US with social media and an election. Not bullets.
  - redeux 2y ago
    I agree with you, but that's not what's being discussed here. If it were to come to kinetic warfare, Russian wouldn't stand a chance against the US as evidenced in Ukraine.
    - bcrl 2y ago
      Would the current US president actually order the US military to defend the country against a Russian invasion? That's not exactly clear anymore.

ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago

Stopping / freezing means russia continues to stock up at the current rate and and takes odessa and kaliningrad once trump term is up. The only option is for to create even more cost efficient+robust+sophisticated+massed drones and slug it out

dralley 2y ago
Kaliningrad is already Russian, I'm not sure what city / country you meant but probably not Kaliningrad.

maratc 2y ago

It sadly does nothing to solve the real geopolitical issue that the US have in this century, namely the rise of China.

altpaddle 2y ago
And who is China's strongest ally in the world?
- maratc 2y ago
  No-one is. If that's a hint at Russians, then no: they were on a brink of war throughout the 70s, tensions in the 80s, basically ignored one another since the 90s, however since the start of Ukraine war and both being on the receiving end of sanctions they started to drift closer, which could be described as "the West pushing Russia into Chinese embrace."